In case you haven’t noticed, the American people are pretty fed up with the two-party system. They see the presidency being passed back and forth between the Bushes and the Clintons. Then they see pictures of George hugging Hillary, and saying Bill Clinton is his “brother from another mother.” Just too cozy.

But it’s more than that. Yes, each party has drawn up its stands on various issues—but things are seldom settled. After all, they’ll need those same issues unresolved—to run on for the next election! Even within the parties, there’s a range of opinion on issues. So I’m going to offer my own suggestion at the end of this article.

Not only are people sick of the parties. They’re even more sick of the “presumed candidates,” according to Politico.

Both candidates, however, have high unfavorability ratings — 56 percent for Clinton and 55 percent for Trump, and nearly six in 10 voters surveyed are dissatisfied with the option of choosing between just Clinton and Trump in November.

Fifty-five percent favor having an independent candidate challenge the Democratic front-runner and presumptive Republican nominee for president. An unprecedented 91 percent of voters 28 or younger favor having an independent on the ballot, and 65 percent of respondents are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.

According to Data Targeting’s ballot test, an independent candidate would start off with 21 percent of the vote.

The survey of 997 respondents was conducted May 12-15 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

The full survey is available here.

The Politico article doesn’t mention that of those who don’t like either Trump or Hillary, an independent would be greatly preferred:

11% for Trump, 7% for Hillary, and 56% for an independent!

Also, Hillary’s unfavorability is even higher than Trump’s:

Among males, Hillary is unfavorable at 64%; Trump with women, 60%.
Among Republicans, Hillary is unfavorable at 78%; Trump with Dems, 71%.
Even among independents, Trump is only one percent more unfavorable, 58% to 57%.

So. . .whatever happened to the GOP drive for a third-party candidate? Romney has given up, according to Newsmax.

Mitt Romney is no longer trying to recruit a third-party candidate to challenge Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump, Yahoo News reports.

The news site, quoting an unnamed source, reports Wednesday the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP nominee remains “motivated to help the ‘stop Trump’ cause,” but is not calling or emailing any people still considering a run.

Meanwhile, William Krisol, who has worked the hardest to get a GOP third-party run, was recently called a “renegade Jew” by a Trump-friendly Breitbart columnist.

Breitbart columnist David Horowitz labeled conservative figurehead Bill Kristol a “Renegade Jew” for his push to keep presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump out of the White House.

Horowitz, who is Jewish, published a column on Sunday titled “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew Prepares Third Party Effort to block Trump’s Path to White House.” Within hours, the phrase “Renegade Jew” was trending on Twitter.

Yes, people want a third-party candidate. But who?

If Bernie Sanders were to run as the third-party candidate, he’d likely hand the White House to Trump; and if Ted Cruz were to run as a third-party candidate, he’d likely hand the White House to Hillary.

In a recent column, we pointed out that the GOP could nominate three candidates, just as the Whigs ran three candidates against Democrat Martin Van Buren, in 1836. Having three GOP candidates this year would probably prevent Hillary from getting 270 Electoral College votes, throwing the election into the House of Representatives, where one of the Republicans would certainly be anointed president.

BUT—that brings me to my own, unorthodox suggestion:

How about if BOTH parties nominate TWO candidates? Imagine if you had a choice between Trump, Hillary, Cruz, OR Bernie! For one thing, it would make the conventions less dangerous (politically AND physically). It would also keep everyone within the two-party process. At the same time, it would give voters a real choice, for a change.

Seriously, this would only require minor convention rule changes. However, party leaders would have to trust each other to follow through. After all, the GOP convention is more than a month before the Dems in July. If they nominated both Cruz and Trump, the Dems could renege a week later, leaving the GOP doomed. Also, the House of Representatives would have to agree to make the highest vote-getter the next president, even if that’s Bernie or Hillary.

Yep, four two-party tickets is the way to go this year! Doncha think?


    • So. . .in other words. . .

      Instead of having Bernie on an equal footing–as one of four major party candidates,

      You’d rather relegate him to the Green Party ballot, so if he loses, you can say that’s why?

    • This sounds like Ralph Nader’s arrogant self-rightous defense for sticking us with George Dumbya.

  1. To avoid ever facing this situation again, here is the fix we should implement. Use Ranked Choice Voting to determine the top two Presidential Vote Getters in each state. Then allocate the Electors for each state based on the results of that popular vote in each state. Kills the Spoiler Scenario that restricts our choices under your proposal. Gives Red Voters in Blue states (and vice versa) a reason to come out and vote.

    • We need to do away with the electoral college vote in deciding the Presidentm. Gore beat Busch in popular vote, but lost the electorsl vote due primarily to the dispute in Florida, which we all know was no mistske. Jeb’s SOS had a great deal of influence over the ballot custody; and it was no question that hanky – panky was afoot.

      • While there is some justification for it, doing away with the electoral college would require states with more acreage than people (the Rocky Mountain and Plains States) to give more power to more populated states. Ain’t gonna happen. Therefore we should find solutions within the existing system.

        • Larry, it’s much simpler then that. Just drop electoral college, which is a farce, and place emphasis on popular vote. Each State gathers eligible voters, votes, and the S.O.S. in each State certifies the count and there you have it. The people, each and everyone that exercises their constitutional right to vote is heard, and the winner takes all (i.e. Trump 12,679,545 votes – Bernie 12,679, 544); we have a winner. Why cloud the water by placing additional roadblocks in the path to Democracy? We all know that the electoral college is a devise employed by the two parties in control of everything, to maintain the status quo and maintain power, exclusive of all interlopers.

          Gore had more popular votes then Busch but lost because the electoral college. Why have an open election? Just let the electoral college decide. The electorate should just stay home. The parties don’t even need them! After all, it’s only the government of the people!

          • Let’s face reality here, Terry. You can’t “drop” the Electoral College without a Constitutional Amendment. The chances of getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is lower than whale sh*t.

            • No one said it would be easy. But just because something isn’t broke, it may still be fixed.

        • It’s these “United States of America.” Each state stands alone when voting. That is all registered voters, Ind., Dem., Rep., etc. would vote, no exclusions. The winning candidate with the most electorate votes wins the state.

          Every parties candidate has the same chance but only one will win if they have more popular votes. All registrred voters who vote will count.

          This would be fair.

  2. Eh…

    What about the system where voters rank candidates on a ballot from best to worst…part list system, I thinks it’s called.

    One thing’s for sure: we need a multiparty system in the US. How that would happen, I have no idea.

    • Establishing term limits would go along way in stopping elite control of any party.

      New blood would ensure that no one person could rise to such power that John or Jane Doe would be shut out by people like Reed or Connelly.

      • Term limits is only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Term Limits is based on the supposition that if you pour out some dirty water from the bucket the bucket water will be cleaner. The reality is the dirty water will make the new clean water dirty. Plus, what guarantees do you have that the new water you pour in will be clean?

        • Come on Larry, even if water is dirty, injection of new clean water will make the water clearer over time, and transparency is exactly what this government needs. Also do away with continued salaries paid to ousted incumbents. I know of not one job that you can get fired, laid off, or retire from and still receive full salary for doing nothing. Oh, that’s, Obama said, “if you want to get paid for doing nothing, you need to run for Congress!” Everybody should run and serve at least one term. This would solve everyone’s income problems for life! LMAO

          • About two to four years ago the Sacremento, CA newspaper did a study of the impact of Term Limits in their state. They demonstrated that the impact of term limits was to empower lobbyists because of the churn of legislators. And, I say again, Terry, you have no guarantee that the new water you pour in is clean. It may, in fact, be even dirtier than the water you just poured out.

            • Get rid of the damned lobbyist too! Along with campaign finance reforms and we might have a system worth running for office could be feasible for anyone, even me and you Larry!

            • It’s worse than that.

              Our current system is like this:

              Congresspeople spend the majority of their time on the phone, begging for campaign contributions.

              When they first arrive, unpaid staff run things. One rep said it took him two full years before he had a say in how the office ran. Term limits would just mean no rep ever would “represent.”

              And, as has been widely reported, lobbyists WRITE the laws. Reps put their name on them, but it’s really the special interests who “make” our laws.

              It doesn’t help to cry about it, and it doesn’t help to dream about what “could” be.

              And, Terry: What, exactly, is your plan to “get rid of the damned lobbyist”? Without a plan, it’s just talk–that makes matters worse.

            • Nothing worth having is easy. If you stand on the sidelines you can’t bitch when things go south.

              Prohibit lobbyists. You know write bill and present it to the house and senate. Old idea, good plan.

              Propse campaign funding bill. If capitoll hill wont do it, then do referendum.

              It’s worth the effort. Hold hearings, public town halls; call your US senators, what ever it takes. Don’t just sit on the sidelines and say it can’t be changed.

            • We already have term limits. It’s called, “vote the bums out”. Problem is more Gerrymandering than passing another law to help lobbyists.

      • Term limits is what they do in Mexico, each official can only be elected once. Many say that’s led to the corruption and ineffectiveness of Mexican government. Because officials aren’t concerned about being reelected, they don’t work in favor of their constituents, instead working solely for their own interests.

        • Jaros, this isn’t Mexico. Our 3 branch government with checks and balances would preclude the problems you noted in Mexico.

          We don’t put up with tomfoolery. Anyone breaking tge law would be prosecuted. Plus they can be removed from iffice if they break the law.

          Presidents can be impeached for crimes (i.e. Tricky Dick) they commit. Our presidents o ly serve 2 terms. To much scrutiny for them to get by with anything.

          Term limits are needed to avoid obstructionism and gridlock. If they don’t do their jobs we vote em out!

  3. We do have choices other than Clinton and Trump – there’s the Green Party’s Jill Stein and the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, just to name two. Why aren’t the 21% who would support an Independent candidate lining up behind them?

    Is it just the polls not even listing those options?

    • Green or Libertarian are not real choices. Those voters need to join the major parties and change them from within. Republicans went from being most progressive to the party of 1% with the election of Warren Harding. Democrats went from the party of racists to emphacizing workers and women when Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act. Workers lost out big with Ronnie Reagan.

      Time for another change. Since we don’t have a Parliamentary system, don’t screw things up with third parties. That doesn’t work. Been there, done that, with horrific results, helped by a lot of dirty tricks.

      Change comes from within.

      • True, but parties redefine themselves only if they’re forced to.
        If we let them get away with appointing Hitlery Clinton, they’ll shove more of the same, possibly in the form of Rahm Emmanuel, down our throat in 2020.

        If they see they can’t win with warmongering Wall Street lobbyists, they might become a reasonable party once more.

        There’s no way I’ll tell them I’m ok with eternal war and Wall Street favoritism, so there’s [almost; the only thing that could change my mind there would be Trump going totally insane, saying he wants war with Russia or something] no way I’ll vote for Clinton.

        As for Trump, he has had some moments at which I thought he might get the “lesser evil” vote, e.g.
        But then he follows up saying something insane like proposing to go after the families of suspected terrorists, which makes me rule him out again.

        So if I can’t vote for Trump or Clinton, what remains? It’s either a third party, or a write-in for Sanders, or a write-in of “none of the above”.

        Of those, third party seems to be the best way to go because if enough people do it, they’ll at least get some election funding next time.

        • Vote anyway for downballot choices. Local politics drives national parties. It’s the long game where progressives lose out by not showing up for off year and local elections.

          This obsession with Sanders being ‘revolutionary’ is nonsense when he’s a New Deal Democrat who has to run as an independent to get elected.

          Third party is the cowardly way to go since the candidate will only get enough votes to throw the election to Trump. I’ve listened to Dr. Jill Stein, and am thoroughly unimpressed with her knowledge of government, or plans to work with Congress and our foreign allies. Stein and Sanders will be crushed by the same hate machine that has been trying to redefine Hillary Clinton for over 25 years, and not succeding as they thought they would.

  4. @Kate: That means you want Trump to win. Great plan if you’re a troll, but incredibly counterproductive for a progressive.

    You are a Progressive for Trump, you Bernie or Bust folks, aren’t you?

Comments are closed.